❓ Hon Murray Criddle asks about the Education Minister's considerations regarding Year 7 students moving to secondary schools, the publication of any findings, and consultation with stakeholders, particularly in rural areas. The Minister acknowledges divided research, infrastructure challenges, financial implications, ongoing work, and planned consultation.
AnsweredQoN 334Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
YEAR 7 STUDENTS - SECONDARY SCHOOLING
In recent times concerned parents, teachers and primary school principals have talked about year 7 students moving to secondary colleges. (1) What considerations has the minister or her department given to this? (2) If any, when will the results of the considerations be published? (3) Will parents, teachers and primary school principals, particularly those in country areas, be consulted? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH
In recent times concerned parents, teachers and primary school principals have talked about year 7 students moving to secondary colleges. (1) What considerations has the minister or her department given to this? (2) If any, when will the results of the considerations be published? (3) Will parents, teachers and primary school principals, particularly those in country areas, be consulted? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH
AnswerView source ↗
I must be really popular. They missed me yesterday, but I am back. (1)-(3) The first point I will make on the issue of whether year 7 students should remain in primary school or be moved up to become part of the secondary school structure is that research is divided about the benefits and arguments for and against. One school of thought is that if students are moved up with more senior students, they will mature more quickly. There are also other benefits. The other school of thought is that we could be forcing students to mature and accept additional responsibilities. The educational benefit is at question here. It is not as though there is clear-cut research that definitively demonstrates that students will benefit through a 30 per cent improvement in their academic achievement. If that sort of information were already available, it would obviously be a compelling reason to consider the move in a perhaps more serious light. However, because it is not compelling, I certainly have some reservations. It has been pushed to some extent by some independent top-fee-charging schools, as their capital infrastructure is structured in such a way that enables them to do that quite easily, as they usually run K-12 schools anyway. The capital infrastructure in government schools is structured differently. We usually have separate preprimary schools, K-7 primary schools and schools with either a district high component or with years 8 to 12. In terms of the financial implications, there would certainly be major significant capital costs associated with moving students into that sort of structure. There is some work ongoing on a range of issues, but I am told that, in addition to the additional capital costs that would be required, there is no body of research that indicates kids would be that much better off. That means that, as minister, I am not rushing to make a policy decision in respect of this matter. Regional and rural parents will be consulted as a part of the work that is currently being done by the department.
(1) What considerations has the minister or her department given to this? (2) If any, when will the results of the considerations be published? (3) Will parents, teachers and primary school principals, particularly those in country areas, be consulted? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I must be really popular. They missed me yesterday, but I am back. (1)-(3) The first point I will make on the issue of whether year 7 students should remain in primary school or be moved up to become part of the secondary school structure is that research is divided about the benefits and arguments for and against. One school of thought is that if students are moved up with more senior students, they will mature more quickly. There are also other benefits. The other school of thought is that we could be forcing students to mature and accept additional responsibilities. The educational benefit is at question here. It is not as though there is clear-cut research that definitively demonstrates that students will benefit through a 30 per cent improvement in their academic achievement. If that sort of information were already available, it would obviously be a compelling reason to consider the move in a perhaps more serious light. However, because it is not compelling, I certainly have some reservations. It has been pushed to some extent by some independent top-fee-charging schools, as their capital infrastructure is structured in such a way that enables them to do that quite easily, as they usually run K-12 schools anyway. The capital infrastructure in government schools is structured differently. We usually have separate preprimary schools, K-7 primary schools and schools with either a district high component or with years 8 to 12. In terms of the financial implications, there would certainly be major significant capital costs associated with moving students into that sort of structure. There is some work ongoing on a range of issues, but I am told that, in addition to the additional capital costs that would be required, there is no body of research that indicates kids would be that much better off. That means that, as minister, I am not rushing to make a policy decision in respect of this matter. Regional and rural parents will be consulted as a part of the work that is currently being done by the department.
(2) If any, when will the results of the considerations be published? (3) Will parents, teachers and primary school principals, particularly those in country areas, be consulted? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I must be really popular. They missed me yesterday, but I am back. (1)-(3) The first point I will make on the issue of whether year 7 students should remain in primary school or be moved up to become part of the secondary school structure is that research is divided about the benefits and arguments for and against. One school of thought is that if students are moved up with more senior students, they will mature more quickly. There are also other benefits. The other school of thought is that we could be forcing students to mature and accept additional responsibilities. The educational benefit is at question here. It is not as though there is clear-cut research that definitively demonstrates that students will benefit through a 30 per cent improvement in their academic achievement. If that sort of information were already available, it would obviously be a compelling reason to consider the move in a perhaps more serious light. However, because it is not compelling, I certainly have some reservations. It has been pushed to some extent by some independent top-fee-charging schools, as their capital infrastructure is structured in such a way that enables them to do that quite easily, as they usually run K-12 schools anyway. The capital infrastructure in government schools is structured differently. We usually have separate preprimary schools, K-7 primary schools and schools with either a district high component or with years 8 to 12. In terms of the financial implications, there would certainly be major significant capital costs associated with moving students into that sort of structure. There is some work ongoing on a range of issues, but I am told that, in addition to the additional capital costs that would be required, there is no body of research that indicates kids would be that much better off. That means that, as minister, I am not rushing to make a policy decision in respect of this matter. Regional and rural parents will be consulted as a part of the work that is currently being done by the department.
(3) Will parents, teachers and primary school principals, particularly those in country areas, be consulted? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I must be really popular. They missed me yesterday, but I am back. (1)-(3) The first point I will make on the issue of whether year 7 students should remain in primary school or be moved up to become part of the secondary school structure is that research is divided about the benefits and arguments for and against. One school of thought is that if students are moved up with more senior students, they will mature more quickly. There are also other benefits. The other school of thought is that we could be forcing students to mature and accept additional responsibilities. The educational benefit is at question here. It is not as though there is clear-cut research that definitively demonstrates that students will benefit through a 30 per cent improvement in their academic achievement. If that sort of information were already available, it would obviously be a compelling reason to consider the move in a perhaps more serious light. However, because it is not compelling, I certainly have some reservations. It has been pushed to some extent by some independent top-fee-charging schools, as their capital infrastructure is structured in such a way that enables them to do that quite easily, as they usually run K-12 schools anyway. The capital infrastructure in government schools is structured differently. We usually have separate preprimary schools, K-7 primary schools and schools with either a district high component or with years 8 to 12. In terms of the financial implications, there would certainly be major significant capital costs associated with moving students into that sort of structure. There is some work ongoing on a range of issues, but I am told that, in addition to the additional capital costs that would be required, there is no body of research that indicates kids would be that much better off. That means that, as minister, I am not rushing to make a policy decision in respect of this matter. Regional and rural parents will be consulted as a part of the work that is currently being done by the department.
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I must be really popular. They missed me yesterday, but I am back. (1)-(3) The first point I will make on the issue of whether year 7 students should remain in primary school or be moved up to become part of the secondary school structure is that research is divided about the benefits and arguments for and against. One school of thought is that if students are moved up with more senior students, they will mature more quickly. There are also other benefits. The other school of thought is that we could be forcing students to mature and accept additional responsibilities. The educational benefit is at question here. It is not as though there is clear-cut research that definitively demonstrates that students will benefit through a 30 per cent improvement in their academic achievement. If that sort of information were already available, it would obviously be a compelling reason to consider the move in a perhaps more serious light. However, because it is not compelling, I certainly have some reservations. It has been pushed to some extent by some independent top-fee-charging schools, as their capital infrastructure is structured in such a way that enables them to do that quite easily, as they usually run K-12 schools anyway. The capital infrastructure in government schools is structured differently. We usually have separate preprimary schools, K-7 primary schools and schools with either a district high component or with years 8 to 12. In terms of the financial implications, there would certainly be major significant capital costs associated with moving students into that sort of structure. There is some work ongoing on a range of issues, but I am told that, in addition to the additional capital costs that would be required, there is no body of research that indicates kids would be that much better off. That means that, as minister, I am not rushing to make a policy decision in respect of this matter. Regional and rural parents will be consulted as a part of the work that is currently being done by the department.
I must be really popular. They missed me yesterday, but I am back. (1)-(3) The first point I will make on the issue of whether year 7 students should remain in primary school or be moved up to become part of the secondary school structure is that research is divided about the benefits and arguments for and against. One school of thought is that if students are moved up with more senior students, they will mature more quickly. There are also other benefits. The other school of thought is that we could be forcing students to mature and accept additional responsibilities. The educational benefit is at question here. It is not as though there is clear-cut research that definitively demonstrates that students will benefit through a 30 per cent improvement in their academic achievement. If that sort of information were already available, it would obviously be a compelling reason to consider the move in a perhaps more serious light. However, because it is not compelling, I certainly have some reservations. It has been pushed to some extent by some independent top-fee-charging schools, as their capital infrastructure is structured in such a way that enables them to do that quite easily, as they usually run K-12 schools anyway. The capital infrastructure in government schools is structured differently. We usually have separate preprimary schools, K-7 primary schools and schools with either a district high component or with years 8 to 12. In terms of the financial implications, there would certainly be major significant capital costs associated with moving students into that sort of structure. There is some work ongoing on a range of issues, but I am told that, in addition to the additional capital costs that would be required, there is no body of research that indicates kids would be that much better off. That means that, as minister, I am not rushing to make a policy decision in respect of this matter. Regional and rural parents will be consulted as a part of the work that is currently being done by the department.
(1)-(3) The first point I will make on the issue of whether year 7 students should remain in primary school or be moved up to become part of the secondary school structure is that research is divided about the benefits and arguments for and against. One school of thought is that if students are moved up with more senior students, they will mature more quickly. There are also other benefits. The other school of thought is that we could be forcing students to mature and accept additional responsibilities. The educational benefit is at question here. It is not as though there is clear-cut research that definitively demonstrates that students will benefit through a 30 per cent improvement in their academic achievement. If that sort of information were already available, it would obviously be a compelling reason to consider the move in a perhaps more serious light. However, because it is not compelling, I certainly have some reservations. It has been pushed to some extent by some independent top-fee-charging schools, as their capital infrastructure is structured in such a way that enables them to do that quite easily, as they usually run K-12 schools anyway. The capital infrastructure in government schools is structured differently. We usually have separate preprimary schools, K-7 primary schools and schools with either a district high component or with years 8 to 12. In terms of the financial implications, there would certainly be major significant capital costs associated with moving students into that sort of structure. There is some work ongoing on a range of issues, but I am told that, in addition to the additional capital costs that would be required, there is no body of research that indicates kids would be that much better off. That means that, as minister, I am not rushing to make a policy decision in respect of this matter. Regional and rural parents will be consulted as a part of the work that is currently being done by the department.
(1) What considerations has the minister or her department given to this? (2) If any, when will the results of the considerations be published? (3) Will parents, teachers and primary school principals, particularly those in country areas, be consulted? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I must be really popular. They missed me yesterday, but I am back. (1)-(3) The first point I will make on the issue of whether year 7 students should remain in primary school or be moved up to become part of the secondary school structure is that research is divided about the benefits and arguments for and against. One school of thought is that if students are moved up with more senior students, they will mature more quickly. There are also other benefits. The other school of thought is that we could be forcing students to mature and accept additional responsibilities. The educational benefit is at question here. It is not as though there is clear-cut research that definitively demonstrates that students will benefit through a 30 per cent improvement in their academic achievement. If that sort of information were already available, it would obviously be a compelling reason to consider the move in a perhaps more serious light. However, because it is not compelling, I certainly have some reservations. It has been pushed to some extent by some independent top-fee-charging schools, as their capital infrastructure is structured in such a way that enables them to do that quite easily, as they usually run K-12 schools anyway. The capital infrastructure in government schools is structured differently. We usually have separate preprimary schools, K-7 primary schools and schools with either a district high component or with years 8 to 12. In terms of the financial implications, there would certainly be major significant capital costs associated with moving students into that sort of structure. There is some work ongoing on a range of issues, but I am told that, in addition to the additional capital costs that would be required, there is no body of research that indicates kids would be that much better off. That means that, as minister, I am not rushing to make a policy decision in respect of this matter. Regional and rural parents will be consulted as a part of the work that is currently being done by the department.
(2) If any, when will the results of the considerations be published? (3) Will parents, teachers and primary school principals, particularly those in country areas, be consulted? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I must be really popular. They missed me yesterday, but I am back. (1)-(3) The first point I will make on the issue of whether year 7 students should remain in primary school or be moved up to become part of the secondary school structure is that research is divided about the benefits and arguments for and against. One school of thought is that if students are moved up with more senior students, they will mature more quickly. There are also other benefits. The other school of thought is that we could be forcing students to mature and accept additional responsibilities. The educational benefit is at question here. It is not as though there is clear-cut research that definitively demonstrates that students will benefit through a 30 per cent improvement in their academic achievement. If that sort of information were already available, it would obviously be a compelling reason to consider the move in a perhaps more serious light. However, because it is not compelling, I certainly have some reservations. It has been pushed to some extent by some independent top-fee-charging schools, as their capital infrastructure is structured in such a way that enables them to do that quite easily, as they usually run K-12 schools anyway. The capital infrastructure in government schools is structured differently. We usually have separate preprimary schools, K-7 primary schools and schools with either a district high component or with years 8 to 12. In terms of the financial implications, there would certainly be major significant capital costs associated with moving students into that sort of structure. There is some work ongoing on a range of issues, but I am told that, in addition to the additional capital costs that would be required, there is no body of research that indicates kids would be that much better off. That means that, as minister, I am not rushing to make a policy decision in respect of this matter. Regional and rural parents will be consulted as a part of the work that is currently being done by the department.
(3) Will parents, teachers and primary school principals, particularly those in country areas, be consulted? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I must be really popular. They missed me yesterday, but I am back. (1)-(3) The first point I will make on the issue of whether year 7 students should remain in primary school or be moved up to become part of the secondary school structure is that research is divided about the benefits and arguments for and against. One school of thought is that if students are moved up with more senior students, they will mature more quickly. There are also other benefits. The other school of thought is that we could be forcing students to mature and accept additional responsibilities. The educational benefit is at question here. It is not as though there is clear-cut research that definitively demonstrates that students will benefit through a 30 per cent improvement in their academic achievement. If that sort of information were already available, it would obviously be a compelling reason to consider the move in a perhaps more serious light. However, because it is not compelling, I certainly have some reservations. It has been pushed to some extent by some independent top-fee-charging schools, as their capital infrastructure is structured in such a way that enables them to do that quite easily, as they usually run K-12 schools anyway. The capital infrastructure in government schools is structured differently. We usually have separate preprimary schools, K-7 primary schools and schools with either a district high component or with years 8 to 12. In terms of the financial implications, there would certainly be major significant capital costs associated with moving students into that sort of structure. There is some work ongoing on a range of issues, but I am told that, in addition to the additional capital costs that would be required, there is no body of research that indicates kids would be that much better off. That means that, as minister, I am not rushing to make a policy decision in respect of this matter. Regional and rural parents will be consulted as a part of the work that is currently being done by the department.
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I must be really popular. They missed me yesterday, but I am back. (1)-(3) The first point I will make on the issue of whether year 7 students should remain in primary school or be moved up to become part of the secondary school structure is that research is divided about the benefits and arguments for and against. One school of thought is that if students are moved up with more senior students, they will mature more quickly. There are also other benefits. The other school of thought is that we could be forcing students to mature and accept additional responsibilities. The educational benefit is at question here. It is not as though there is clear-cut research that definitively demonstrates that students will benefit through a 30 per cent improvement in their academic achievement. If that sort of information were already available, it would obviously be a compelling reason to consider the move in a perhaps more serious light. However, because it is not compelling, I certainly have some reservations. It has been pushed to some extent by some independent top-fee-charging schools, as their capital infrastructure is structured in such a way that enables them to do that quite easily, as they usually run K-12 schools anyway. The capital infrastructure in government schools is structured differently. We usually have separate preprimary schools, K-7 primary schools and schools with either a district high component or with years 8 to 12. In terms of the financial implications, there would certainly be major significant capital costs associated with moving students into that sort of structure. There is some work ongoing on a range of issues, but I am told that, in addition to the additional capital costs that would be required, there is no body of research that indicates kids would be that much better off. That means that, as minister, I am not rushing to make a policy decision in respect of this matter. Regional and rural parents will be consulted as a part of the work that is currently being done by the department.
I must be really popular. They missed me yesterday, but I am back. (1)-(3) The first point I will make on the issue of whether year 7 students should remain in primary school or be moved up to become part of the secondary school structure is that research is divided about the benefits and arguments for and against. One school of thought is that if students are moved up with more senior students, they will mature more quickly. There are also other benefits. The other school of thought is that we could be forcing students to mature and accept additional responsibilities. The educational benefit is at question here. It is not as though there is clear-cut research that definitively demonstrates that students will benefit through a 30 per cent improvement in their academic achievement. If that sort of information were already available, it would obviously be a compelling reason to consider the move in a perhaps more serious light. However, because it is not compelling, I certainly have some reservations. It has been pushed to some extent by some independent top-fee-charging schools, as their capital infrastructure is structured in such a way that enables them to do that quite easily, as they usually run K-12 schools anyway. The capital infrastructure in government schools is structured differently. We usually have separate preprimary schools, K-7 primary schools and schools with either a district high component or with years 8 to 12. In terms of the financial implications, there would certainly be major significant capital costs associated with moving students into that sort of structure. There is some work ongoing on a range of issues, but I am told that, in addition to the additional capital costs that would be required, there is no body of research that indicates kids would be that much better off. That means that, as minister, I am not rushing to make a policy decision in respect of this matter. Regional and rural parents will be consulted as a part of the work that is currently being done by the department.
(1)-(3) The first point I will make on the issue of whether year 7 students should remain in primary school or be moved up to become part of the secondary school structure is that research is divided about the benefits and arguments for and against. One school of thought is that if students are moved up with more senior students, they will mature more quickly. There are also other benefits. The other school of thought is that we could be forcing students to mature and accept additional responsibilities. The educational benefit is at question here. It is not as though there is clear-cut research that definitively demonstrates that students will benefit through a 30 per cent improvement in their academic achievement. If that sort of information were already available, it would obviously be a compelling reason to consider the move in a perhaps more serious light. However, because it is not compelling, I certainly have some reservations. It has been pushed to some extent by some independent top-fee-charging schools, as their capital infrastructure is structured in such a way that enables them to do that quite easily, as they usually run K-12 schools anyway. The capital infrastructure in government schools is structured differently. We usually have separate preprimary schools, K-7 primary schools and schools with either a district high component or with years 8 to 12. In terms of the financial implications, there would certainly be major significant capital costs associated with moving students into that sort of structure. There is some work ongoing on a range of issues, but I am told that, in addition to the additional capital costs that would be required, there is no body of research that indicates kids would be that much better off. That means that, as minister, I am not rushing to make a policy decision in respect of this matter. Regional and rural parents will be consulted as a part of the work that is currently being done by the department.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.